Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

magicfingers-627-732455 Performers are vain and sensitive. Many want to be performers, to make money, to earn fame. Very few accomplish either."Heckler" involves those who have proved themselves worthy of praise and those who would be better off in another line of work. Who decides? The audience.The clips of Jaime Kennedy show an earnest, young performer who isn't very funny in the footage shown. He's mad about it, hurt from it, but it's not the critics' fault. There are more established and successful comedians (Eugene Mirman, Patton Oswalt, Maria Bamford, et al) who cry a bit about having their feelings singed, yet who have solid material and clear vision.There is a wide range of notables and has-beens in this show. More would care if they hadn't spent their day cleaning toilet and serving fries. After all, trying-to-be-funny people: you're not doctors, serious artists, record-setting athletes, best-selling authors. Be glad you earned a dime. You're clowns. Either toughen up or do something useful.Life is hard work. Most people (as in 99+%) don't give a damn if you exist, let alone if you succeed in telling jokes by making a million dollars and having everyone love you. There is a glut of amateur performers in America. It's a sickness. It's vainglorious bullshit. Rather than spend all day trying to convince the world how important your art is or sitting in some selfish depression, get off your ass and do something useful. Because if you are really destined to do the job, you will work at it and be great at it. Otherwise, you'll just waste your time and other people's money.

SeriousJest The film begins by focusing on hecklers, as the term is generally used: people who attend live performances, like a stand-up comedy show, and attempt to interrupt the performers and shift the attention to themselves. I think an overwhelming amount of the public will agree that those people are annoying and in the wrong. Nobody is there to see the heckler. If you don't enjoy the performance, don't clap, don't smile, or simply leave…but don't interrupt everyone else's experience. Live-performance hecklers are like the ugly girl who CBs her friends at a party because nobody's talking to her. I enjoy seeing good comedians rip those people apart…and here's a secret: the guy with the mic will usually win that battle.The brunt of this documentary, however, focuses on extending the term "heckler" to critics in general, including movie reviewers. To that end, Kennedy confronts people who have written scathing reviews about him, effectively demonstrating that they focus more on creatively bashing him than actually explaining why they don't like his projects or offering constructive criticism. He also points out that many of these individuals appear to be people whom you probably wouldn't want to have a conversation with, let alone take movie advice from them.Several of the performers interviewed make the point that most critics haven't ever produced a successful piece of performance art themselves. I respect that argument for the concept that reviewers should be sensitive to the fact that producing creative material is not easy. However, I would counter that I don't need to be a chef to tell you that something doesn't taste good to me. I may not have a "refined palate," but for people who like the kind of movies I like, like the way I think, or otherwise relate to me, my opinion may actually be useful, despite whether the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences agrees with me. I mean, who the hell makes up AMPAS anyway? Google it. It's pretty interesting.Kennedy and his diverse cast of performers also discuss how the internet has empowered a slew of people to take cheap shots at artists from the safety of anonymity. He compares the internet to a big bathroom wall, where anyone can just write whatever they want. I agree that it's much easier to rip someone mercilessly when you don't have to face them. On the other hand, as some of the cast acknowledged, a review that actually intelligently identifies what the critic sees as flaws in the performance can be a very valuable learning tool for the artist. Kennedy just ponders why you'd have to be a jerk about it.Personally, I like the fact that we no longer have to rely on a select group of "published" individuals to tell us what's good and what isn't. A site like Rotten Tomatoes is very useful because it aggregates the opinions of critics as a percentage of likes versus dislikes, and distinguishes them from the opinion of the site users at large. It's a good starting point for determining whether you want to spend your valuable time watching a particular movie…but if you trust the opinion of a particular person, because you relate to him or her in some way, or because they have a good track record of recommendations, that can be even more useful. We at Live from the ManCave (www.livemancave.com) hope to be those reviewers for you, and we're thankful that the internet allows us to bypass all of the obstacles to voicing our opinions that existed just a couple of decades ago.Moreover, the same medium that allows anybody to voice their opinion about art also allows any aspiring artist to bypass the old obstacles to publishing their art. For example, before the internet, talented artists had to court the attention of A&Rs to get people to listen to their material. A select group of people decided what music the public at large got to hear, and if one of them wasn't having a good day, your song might get tossed before the first beat of the first track reached a speaker. Nowadays, you can post your song directly to a social media site and let the people determine for themselves whether they like it. "Shares" and "Likes" are easy to count. A&Rs can't ignore someone with a million Twitter followers.The film also acknowledges that artists ultimately control how criticism affects them. The point is driven home that artists are people, and like any individuals who throw maximum effort and hope into their projects, their feelings are going to be hurt when that project is negatively reviewed. However, as many of the interviewed performers state, artists have to acknowledge the intelligent criticism, discard the useless insults, be strong enough to brush negativity off their shoulders, and keep doing what they love with maximum effort. It may not be easy to do, but it's what you have to do if you want to be successful. Once the critics sense a particular weakness or sensitivity, the sharks will come feasting for blood, and it won't get any easier, as Kanye West has discovered the hard way.Regardless of on what side of the foregoing controversy your opinion falls, this documentary does a good job of highlighting the issues in an entertaining way, and provoking thoughtful conversation on the subject. The film is well-edited, fast-paced, and generally interesting. While it definitely seems to be biased against the hecklers and critics, some of the interviews are not always a clear-cut win for Kennedy. The documentary appears to be kind of tongue-in-cheek, as Kennedy often acts sensitive and whiny when receiving criticism, but the film is also edited as to poke fun at him. In the end, you realize that he gets it. Don't be hatin'.

Steve Pulaski If Heckler is anything for Jamie Kennedy, the film's prime target as someone who has gotten enough heckling for a whole night of comedy acts, it's a feasible and marginal catalyst for all the hate he has gotten over the years from not only critics but people who just seem cold to the idea of "accepting him." Having not seen many of his works, only Malibu's Most Wanted which wasn't particularly compelling but I've without a doubt seen worse, I feel the man is just the public eye's punching bag. He took the throne from Pauly Shore and Tom Green (both men appearing in this film as well) and decides to release his anger and frustration to the hecklers of the world.A "heckler" is someone with intentions of curbing a person's current formal state. The term is commonly associated with comedy acts, when one arrogant loudmouth decides it would be fun and brilliant to disrupt the performer by yelling something unnecessary at them like, "you suck" or something along those lines. The first twenty minutes of this seventy-nine minute documentary focus directly on those kind of people, and have a variety of comedians such as Arsenio Hall, David Cross, Louie Anderson, and Lewis Black weigh in on the concept and how they've dealt with a heckler in their career. The remainder of the documentary takes the questionable turn as it then begins to attack film critics and how miserable, sulky, pretentious, idiotic, lazy, evil, and out of touch they are if they rate a product harshly. As an aspiring film critic myself, I've heard the argument frequently that if you've never made a film you have no right to criticize it. It's a valid point, but by saying that, you're stripping someone of their basic right to have an opinion. Do I need to be president to openly dislike one of his mandates/laws? Do I need to be a chef to say I didn't like this person's food? Do I need to be a landscaper to say I didn't like the look of this yard? Do I need to be a website designer to say I don't like the look of a particularly website? By saying that one is not qualified to state their opinion or look at a film deeply, picking out its flaws and examining its layers pretty much means that one can not have an opinion on pretty much anything unless they've done or experienced it themselves. It's not a sustainable point. One needs to accept the fact that by putting out a piece of work that the ones who pay money to view it in some way, shape, or form have a right to voice their opinion on it. I'm not condoning the action of listlessly shouting at a performer, but everyone has and should have the right to give a mature opinion on something regardless of it being positive or negative. I would've thought many of these comedians, doing a job that is very public and very open, knew that ahead of time.I'm also not huge on the way this film compares hecklers to critics. First off, comparing film/media critics to some random, ignorant scrub yelling insults to a performing act is a facile, invalid point. One party professionally evaluates art and the meanings it could spawn, while the other gives a very immature, childish statement in an act of unnecessary disrespect. They're incomparable, except in the regard that they could potentially make the party at hand feel bad about themselves, which is not my personal goal when writing/publishing a review. When I give a poor review to a film, I give it to the film and not to those involved. I didn't think I needed to attach a disclaimer like this when I began writing.Chunks of the short feature are devoted to other little ways different men in the business of film respond to criticism. Noted director Uwe Boll staged a boxing match between him and his critics, which I honestly can't believe. Unique it is, but if someone didn't like your film, what will make them like it if you beat them bloody in a ring, and what does that say about your acceptance of dissent? Eli Roth states the "death of film" are focus groups, little screenings of the first/second/third cuts of films where a private audience (usually made up of the film's target demographic) is invited to watch the film and voice what they like and didn't like. Instead of writing it off as a way for more people to bitch and moan about what they didn't like, filmmakers should think of these groups as ways to not only improve on their own work but connect with their demographic in a stronger way.While it appears my criticism with Heckler's negative portrait of film critics runs a mile deep, this is nonetheless an interesting documentary, that serves as much more than Kennedy's therapeutic method of coping with sour critics/public. I just kind of wish any of the talents involved would've recognized that their attitude towards critics comes off as bitter and angry, when it's almost cemented in the job description for an actor/comedian. And I'd like to challenge Lewis Black on the fact that when someone's young they do not want to be a critic of any kind. At age five I knew that I wanted to be someone who wrote essays and reviews of films, giving ideas and different views of the medium.Full, more complete review on http://stevethemovieman.proboards.com

bean-d This documentary is a lot of fun, mainly because Kennedy spends a lot of time interviewing interesting people and funny comedians. Not surprisingly, the comedians often have the most incisive, trenchant observations--often cloaked behind vulgarities or inanities.Where the film goes awry is in its conflation of heckler with critic. As a teacher, I can understand the destructive nature of a heckler. There is no benefit in having a student make a smart alec comment while I'm trying to make a point. If the "heckler" truly wishes to help me, then he can come to me after class and offer a suggestion. I think the analogy holds with comedians--although my students aren't normally drunk! A critic, in contrast to a heckler, is not interrupting the show. He is assessing the show/performance/movie/music/etc. after the fact. Admittedly some critics can be jerks, but good criticism should work to make art better by defining the art and helping us to understand it deeper. (As a fan of Roger Ebert, I can attest that he does this for me.) Besides, many of us enjoy reading criticism almost as much as we enjoy the actual art. (In other words, any criticism Jamie Kennedy has against criticism can be turned against him: If you don't like my show, don't attend it. If you don't like my criticism, don't read it.) One thing I think Kennedy fails to understand is that average people don't see a distinction between stars and characters. Jim Carrey is a real person, yes, but I don't know him and never will. To me he is as much a distant character as Ace Ventura. If I make a snide remark about how Carrey's career is on the wane and he deserves an early retirement before he can do any more damage, I don't mean this personally because I don't know him personally! There are several good books about "para-relationships" that people have with stars. Kennedy seems to think that we should relate to him the same way we relate to our roommate or our next door neighbor.And that's my final problem: There is some hypocrisy here. Kennedy seems to be asking for sympathy for himself and his fellow comics: Hey, y'all, we're just people with feelings! But how many comics make a name ripping to shreds women, or Paris Hilton, or conservative Christians, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton? So it's okay to laugh these people to scorn, but please, oh please, be nice to me? As they say where I'm from: Don't play with the bull if you don't want the horns.